* Davidlohr Bueso <d...@stgolabs.net> wrote:
> Current code assumes that wake_futex() will never fail,
> thus we are rather sloppy when incrementing the return
> value in wake related calls, accounting for the newly
> woken task. Of course this will never occur, thus not a
> problem. This bug is as real as the need for the
> redundant pi checks in wake_futex().
>
> These redundant checks are fine and past discussion
> indicates that they will stay. However, it does introduce
> this mismatch, thus it is better to robustify the
> function and avoid any assumptions that could bite us in
> the arse the future.
So can the current code crash or hang if the WARN()
triggers?
> kernel/futex.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
My counter argument is that we add quite a bit of pointless
complexity:
> - if (WARN(q->pi_state || q->rt_waiter, "refusing to wake PI futex\n"))
> - return;
> + if (unlikely(WARN(q->pi_state || q->rt_waiter,
> + "refusing to wake PI futex\n")))
> + return false;
> - wake_futex(this);
> + if (!wake_futex(this)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + break;
> + }
+ [ 4 more usage sites ]
while the WARN() already told the user that the kernel is
broken.
So what's the point? Does it avoid any real badness, state
corruption, crash, hang, etc.?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
